Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Suit No. 231/09 Page 3 of 16 pages Objection has also been taken regarding non-service of notice U/s 53 B DD Act and valuation of the suit. It is further stated that government of India has placed the redevelopment scheme of Kingsway Camp under the control and management of DDA.

4. In the replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. Issues were framed vide order dated 22.08.2006 and the same are:-

8. Issue No. 2:- Whether the suit is barred by Section 53 B of the Delhi Development Act 1957 ? OPD Suit No. 231/09 Page 6 of 16 pages Plaintiff claims that he sent the notice dated 18.01.2003 which is Ex.PW1/10 by registered post as well as by UPC. The receipts of RC are Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12. The receipt of UPC is Ex.PW1/13. The notice Ex.PW1/10 was sent to both defendants and it was under Section 53 B DD Act r/w section 80 CPC. These documents were filed along with the plaint. In the written statement, it is simply stated that the notice under Section 53 B DD Act was not served upon defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has not said anything about the receipts of RC and UPC. There is presumption of service in favour of plaintiff under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The denial of service of the notice is vague as the correctness of the postal receipts has not been disputed. Therefore it is held that plaintiff had sent the notice Ex.PW1/10 under Section 53 B to defendant no. 1 before filing of the suit. The suit is not barred for want of notice as claimed by defendant no. 1. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.